20-24 Club
Institute for Objective Policy Assessment logo with clear bakcground

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment logo with clear bakcground

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment logo with clear bakcground

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment logo with clear bakcground

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment

Institute for Objective
Policy Assessment
(IOPA) – 501[c]3

20-24 Club

Institute for Objective
Policy Assessment
(IOPA) – 501[c]3

Institute for Objective Policy Assessment logo with clear bakcground

Highly Condensed Assessment of the Climate Change Debate

August 7, 2023

Dr. John Merrifield, President
Institute for Objective Policy Assessment
policytalk.org – November 5, 2021

We need an assessment of the public debate of the climate change controversies because:

1) “Getting this wrong will be very costly;” and

2) Many ‘sides’ of the various controversies havesincere, highly-credentialed advocates.

A) There is much discussion of ocean acidification, but no models predict more than slightly reduced alkalinity.
B) Warming and sea level rise is occurring, but the key models have been over-predicting it.
C) There is much discussion of ‘clean energy,’ but there is no such thing. Electric vehicle mandates and subsidies are especially likely to be environmentally devastating.
D) There are ‘no regrets’ carbon emission (GHG) reduction strategies, and all sides should try to implement them. Climate change concern creates an invaluable opportunity to implement many of them.
E) The scenario worthy of a costly policy response requires a quintupling of rates of CO2 accumulation.
F) There’ve been large natural changes in temperature, which are as dangerous as man-caused warming.
G) It is counterproductive to argue that the science is settled. For example, an IPCC member could not get consideration of his evidence that cooling is likely through mid-century.
H) There is too little attention to the potential for release of naturally-stored methane; a powerful GHG.
I) In light of uncertainties, possible natural causes of significant warming, and likely low rates of country compliance with emission reduction promises, geo-engineering is way, way under-researched.
J) China is not acting like it is ready to achieve promised big GHG cuts after 2030; quite the contrary.
K) There is very little analysis of how low compliance with promises affects each country’s best policy.
L) There is much high symbolism, low substance regional Climate Action Plan ‘leadership.’
M) Extreme weather events have not become generally more common.
N) Potential pumped water storage of electricity is under-researched and probably under-utilized.
O) Wind/solar, with standby natural gas-fired generation, releases more GHG than continuously-operated, gas-fired generation, alone!!
P) There is a ‘no-regrets’ approach to carbon taxation, which is important given the related uncertainties.
Q) The ‘price control’ aspects of carbon taxation and carbon removal credits need attention.
R) Corruption persistence is a key GHG emissions cause, especially in less-developed countries.

FULL DEBATE ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT

Share:

Comments

Leave the first comment